Podcast appearances and mentions of James Q Whitman

OA1077, Part 2 of Matt's MAGA is Fascist series. The MAGA movement has just taken a hard turn  to the extreme right with openly fascist messaging from Donald Trump about “migrant crime,” “occupied cities,” and “bad genes.”  We take a moment to absorb this alarming reality before Matt also explains how US immigration policy has always been the leading edge of American protofascism--and why Adolf Hitler personally admired it--before taking a look at Trump's actual 2024 immigration promises and what keeping them would mean for us all. Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, James Q. Whitman (2017) “Trump Apparently Has a List of Things He Loves About Adolf Hitler,” Tori Otten The New Republic (3/11/24) “Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps, and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump's 2025 Immigration Plans,” Charlie Savage, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, The New York Times (11/23/2023) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Dario MantovaniDroit, culture et société de la Rome antiqueCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Conférence - James Q. Whitman : Des maîtres d'esclaves aux seigneurs de terres : la transformation du droit de la propriété en OccidentComprendre une transformation radicale et ses conséquencesL'une des propositions les plus célèbres des sciences sociales occidentales est associée à Karl Marx. Selon Marx, le monde occidental a connu une profonde transition socio-économique après le déclin et la chute de l'Empire romain, passant de l'esclavage antique au féodalisme médiéval. Alors que les économies de l'ancien monde étaient fondées sur la propriété des êtres humains, les économies du Moyen Âge ont été fondées sur la seigneurie féodale de la terre. Marx n'était pas le seul à penser ainsi. De nombreux penseurs ont proposé leurs propres versions de la même affirmation, parmi lesquels des personnalités telles que Max Weber et Marc Bloch.Cette interprétation classique du cours de l'histoire socio-économique occidentale est presque universellement rejetée aujourd'hui. Les chercheurs modernes ont démontré que les histoires socio-économiques des penseurs classiques étaient erronées. Les sociétés du monde antique n'avaient pas d'économies esclavagistes du type de celles imaginées par Marx ou Weber. Les chercheurs ne sont pas non plus disposés à qualifier le Moyen Âge de « féodal » comme le faisaient les penseurs classiques du passé. La grande hypothèse du passage de l'esclavage au féodalisme, aux yeux des chercheurs contemporains, a été fondamentalement réfutée.Pourtant, en examinant les sources juridiques, nous découvrons de nombreux signes de changement qui rappellent les idées de Marx, Weber et Bloch. La Rome classique n'avait pas une économie marxiste de l'esclavage. Mais la formule paradigmatique pour revendiquer des droits de propriété était Je déclare que cet homme est à moi. Le droit romain, plus largement, était riche d'un langage et d'un symbolisme qui appartenaient à ce qu'Orlando Patterson appelle « l'idiome du pouvoir » de la relation maître / esclave. Le « féodalisme » ne s'est peut-être pas abattu sur l'Europe après la chute de l'Empire romain d'Occident. Mais le droit postclassique est indubitablement marqué par une orientation vers la propriété foncière, qui reste l'exemple paradigmatique de la propriété dans la plupart des cultures juridiques modernes. Les interprétations classiques de l'histoire occidentale sont-elles vraiment dénuées de vérité ?Ces conférences soutiennent qu'il y a effectivement du vrai dans les interprétations classiques. L'Occident a réellement été façonné par le passage de la propriété des êtres humains à la propriété de la terre. Mais Marx et ses nombreux successeurs ont eu tort de penser que cette transformation appartenait à l'histoire économique. La grande transformation n'était pas une transformation des modes de production. C'était une transformation de l'imagination juridique. C'était une transformation dans la manière dont le droit occidental a résolu le profond mystère de ce que signifie être propriétaire.Les conférences ont pour but de donner un sens à cette transformation. Elles commencent dans l'Antiquité, en analysant l'« idiome du pouvoir » des relations maître / esclave dans le droit romain antique. Ils se tournent ensuite vers le passage postclassique à une orientation vers la propriété de la terre. Les débuts de ce changement peuvent être datés de l'Antiquité tardive. Mais le processus de changement dans l'imaginaire juridique a été extraordinairement lent, n'atteignant son apogée qu'à la fin des XVIIIe et XIXe siècles, qui ont vu la disparition définitive de la propriété légitime des êtres humains. La fin de l'esclavage légal ne peut être comprise que dans le contexte de cette histoire immensément longue de changement de l'imagination juridique. Pour donner un sens à ce qui s'est passé, les conférences soutiennent que nous devons considérer non seulement l'histoire du droit, mais aussi l'histoire de la religion.James Q. Whitman est professeur invité par l'assemblée du Collège de France sur proposition du Pr Dario Mantovani.

Dario MantovaniDroit, culture et société de la Rome antiqueCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Conférence - James Q. Whitman : Des maîtres d'esclaves aux seigneurs de terres : la transformation du droit de la propriété en OccidentÀ travers Marx et Weber, au-delà de Marx et WeberL'une des propositions les plus célèbres des sciences sociales occidentales est associée à Karl Marx. Selon Marx, le monde occidental a connu une profonde transition socio-économique après le déclin et la chute de l'Empire romain, passant de l'esclavage antique au féodalisme médiéval. Alors que les économies de l'ancien monde étaient fondées sur la propriété des êtres humains, les économies du Moyen Âge ont été fondées sur la seigneurie féodale de la terre. Marx n'était pas le seul à penser ainsi. De nombreux penseurs ont proposé leurs propres versions de la même affirmation, parmi lesquels des personnalités telles que Max Weber et Marc Bloch.Cette interprétation classique du cours de l'histoire socio-économique occidentale est presque universellement rejetée aujourd'hui. Les chercheurs modernes ont démontré que les histoires socio-économiques des penseurs classiques étaient erronées. Les sociétés du monde antique n'avaient pas d'économies esclavagistes du type de celles imaginées par Marx ou Weber. Les chercheurs ne sont pas non plus disposés à qualifier le Moyen Âge de « féodal » comme le faisaient les penseurs classiques du passé. La grande hypothèse du passage de l'esclavage au féodalisme, aux yeux des chercheurs contemporains, a été fondamentalement réfutée.Pourtant, en examinant les sources juridiques, nous découvrons de nombreux signes de changement qui rappellent les idées de Marx, Weber et Bloch. La Rome classique n'avait pas une économie marxiste de l'esclavage. Mais la formule paradigmatique pour revendiquer des droits de propriété était Je déclare que cet homme est à moi. Le droit romain, plus largement, était riche d'un langage et d'un symbolisme qui appartenaient à ce qu'Orlando Patterson appelle « l'idiome du pouvoir » de la relation maître / esclave. Le « féodalisme » ne s'est peut-être pas abattu sur l'Europe après la chute de l'Empire romain d'Occident. Mais le droit postclassique est indubitablement marqué par une orientation vers la propriété foncière, qui reste l'exemple paradigmatique de la propriété dans la plupart des cultures juridiques modernes. Les interprétations classiques de l'histoire occidentale sont-elles vraiment dénuées de vérité ?Ces conférences soutiennent qu'il y a effectivement du vrai dans les interprétations classiques. L'Occident a réellement été façonné par le passage de la propriété des êtres humains à la propriété de la terre. Mais Marx et ses nombreux successeurs ont eu tort de penser que cette transformation appartenait à l'histoire économique. La grande transformation n'était pas une transformation des modes de production. C'était une transformation de l'imagination juridique. C'était une transformation dans la manière dont le droit occidental a résolu le profond mystère de ce que signifie être propriétaire.Les conférences ont pour but de donner un sens à cette transformation. Elles commencent dans l'Antiquité, en analysant l'« idiome du pouvoir » des relations maître / esclave dans le droit romain antique. Ils se tournent ensuite vers le passage postclassique à une orientation vers la propriété de la terre. Les débuts de ce changement peuvent être datés de l'Antiquité tardive. Mais le processus de changement dans l'imaginaire juridique a été extraordinairement lent, n'atteignant son apogée qu'à la fin des XVIIIe et XIXe siècles, qui ont vu la disparition définitive de la propriété légitime des êtres humains. La fin de l'esclavage légal ne peut être comprise que dans le contexte de cette histoire immensément longue de changement de l'imagination juridique. Pour donner un sens à ce qui s'est passé, les conférences soutiennent que nous devons considérer non seulement l'histoire du droit, mais aussi l'histoire de la religion.James Q. Whitman est professeur invité par l'assemblée du Collège de France sur proposition du Pr Dario Mantovani.

Dario MantovaniDroit, culture et société de la Rome antiqueCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Conférence - James Q. Whitman : Des maîtres d'esclaves aux seigneurs de terres : la transformation du droit de la propriété en OccidentDes maîtres d'esclaves aux seigneurs de terres : une transformation en droit occidentalL'une des propositions les plus célèbres des sciences sociales occidentales est associée à Karl Marx. Selon Marx, le monde occidental a connu une profonde transition socio-économique après le déclin et la chute de l'Empire romain, passant de l'esclavage antique au féodalisme médiéval. Alors que les économies de l'ancien monde étaient fondées sur la propriété des êtres humains, les économies du Moyen Âge ont été fondées sur la seigneurie féodale de la terre. Marx n'était pas le seul à penser ainsi. De nombreux penseurs ont proposé leurs propres versions de la même affirmation, parmi lesquels des personnalités telles que Max Weber et Marc Bloch.Cette interprétation classique du cours de l'histoire socio-économique occidentale est presque universellement rejetée aujourd'hui. Les chercheurs modernes ont démontré que les histoires socio-économiques des penseurs classiques étaient erronées. Les sociétés du monde antique n'avaient pas d'économies esclavagistes du type de celles imaginées par Marx ou Weber. Les chercheurs ne sont pas non plus disposés à qualifier le Moyen Âge de « féodal » comme le faisaient les penseurs classiques du passé. La grande hypothèse du passage de l'esclavage au féodalisme, aux yeux des chercheurs contemporains, a été fondamentalement réfutée.Pourtant, en examinant les sources juridiques, nous découvrons de nombreux signes de changement qui rappellent les idées de Marx, Weber et Bloch. La Rome classique n'avait pas une économie marxiste de l'esclavage. Mais la formule paradigmatique pour revendiquer des droits de propriété était Je déclare que cet homme est à moi. Le droit romain, plus largement, était riche d'un langage et d'un symbolisme qui appartenaient à ce qu'Orlando Patterson appelle « l'idiome du pouvoir » de la relation maître / esclave. Le « féodalisme » ne s'est peut-être pas abattu sur l'Europe après la chute de l'Empire romain d'Occident. Mais le droit postclassique est indubitablement marqué par une orientation vers la propriété foncière, qui reste l'exemple paradigmatique de la propriété dans la plupart des cultures juridiques modernes. Les interprétations classiques de l'histoire occidentale sont-elles vraiment dénuées de vérité ?Ces conférences soutiennent qu'il y a effectivement du vrai dans les interprétations classiques. L'Occident a réellement été façonné par le passage de la propriété des êtres humains à la propriété de la terre. Mais Marx et ses nombreux successeurs ont eu tort de penser que cette transformation appartenait à l'histoire économique. La grande transformation n'était pas une transformation des modes de production. C'était une transformation de l'imagination juridique. C'était une transformation dans la manière dont le droit occidental a résolu le profond mystère de ce que signifie être propriétaire.Les conférences ont pour but de donner un sens à cette transformation. Elles commencent dans l'Antiquité, en analysant l'« idiome du pouvoir » des relations maître / esclave dans le droit romain antique. Ils se tournent ensuite vers le passage postclassique à une orientation vers la propriété de la terre. Les débuts de ce changement peuvent être datés de l'Antiquité tardive. Mais le processus de changement dans l'imaginaire juridique a été extraordinairement lent, n'atteignant son apogée qu'à la fin des XVIIIe et XIXe siècles, qui ont vu la disparition définitive de la propriété légitime des êtres humains. La fin de l'esclavage légal ne peut être comprise que dans le contexte de cette histoire immensément longue de changement de l'imagination juridique. Pour donner un sens à ce qui s'est passé, les conférences soutiennent que nous devons considérer non seulement l'histoire du droit, mais aussi l'histoire de la religion.James Q. Whitman est professeur invité par l'assemblée du Collège de France sur proposition du Pr Dario Mantovani.

Dario MantovaniDroit, culture et société de la Rome antiqueCollège de FranceAnnée 2022-2023Conférence - James Q. Whitman : Des maîtres d'esclaves aux seigneurs de terres : la transformation du droit de la propriété en OccidentPosséder des hommes, posséder des terres : deux modes primitifs de l'imagination juridiqueL'une des propositions les plus célèbres des sciences sociales occidentales est associée à Karl Marx. Selon Marx, le monde occidental a connu une profonde transition socio-économique après le déclin et la chute de l'Empire romain, passant de l'esclavage antique au féodalisme médiéval. Alors que les économies de l'ancien monde étaient fondées sur la propriété des êtres humains, les économies du Moyen Âge ont été fondées sur la seigneurie féodale de la terre. Marx n'était pas le seul à penser ainsi. De nombreux penseurs ont proposé leurs propres versions de la même affirmation, parmi lesquels des personnalités telles que Max Weber et Marc Bloch.Cette interprétation classique du cours de l'histoire socio-économique occidentale est presque universellement rejetée aujourd'hui. Les chercheurs modernes ont démontré que les histoires socio-économiques des penseurs classiques étaient erronées. Les sociétés du monde antique n'avaient pas d'économies esclavagistes du type de celles imaginées par Marx ou Weber. Les chercheurs ne sont pas non plus disposés à qualifier le Moyen Âge de « féodal » comme le faisaient les penseurs classiques du passé. La grande hypothèse du passage de l'esclavage au féodalisme, aux yeux des chercheurs contemporains, a été fondamentalement réfutée.Pourtant, en examinant les sources juridiques, nous découvrons de nombreux signes de changement qui rappellent les idées de Marx, Weber et Bloch. La Rome classique n'avait pas une économie marxiste de l'esclavage. Mais la formule paradigmatique pour revendiquer des droits de propriété était Je déclare que cet homme est à moi. Le droit romain, plus largement, était riche d'un langage et d'un symbolisme qui appartenaient à ce qu'Orlando Patterson appelle « l'idiome du pouvoir » de la relation maître / esclave. Le « féodalisme » ne s'est peut-être pas abattu sur l'Europe après la chute de l'Empire romain d'Occident. Mais le droit postclassique est indubitablement marqué par une orientation vers la propriété foncière, qui reste l'exemple paradigmatique de la propriété dans la plupart des cultures juridiques modernes. Les interprétations classiques de l'histoire occidentale sont-elles vraiment dénuées de vérité ?Ces conférences soutiennent qu'il y a effectivement du vrai dans les interprétations classiques. L'Occident a réellement été façonné par le passage de la propriété des êtres humains à la propriété de la terre. Mais Marx et ses nombreux successeurs ont eu tort de penser que cette transformation appartenait à l'histoire économique. La grande transformation n'était pas une transformation des modes de production. C'était une transformation de l'imagination juridique. C'était une transformation dans la manière dont le droit occidental a résolu le profond mystère de ce que signifie être propriétaire.Les conférences ont pour but de donner un sens à cette transformation. Elles commencent dans l'Antiquité, en analysant l'« idiome du pouvoir » des relations maître / esclave dans le droit romain antique. Ils se tournent ensuite vers le passage postclassique à une orientation vers la propriété de la terre. Les débuts de ce changement peuvent être datés de l'Antiquité tardive. Mais le processus de changement dans l'imaginaire juridique a été extraordinairement lent, n'atteignant son apogée qu'à la fin des XVIIIe et XIXe siècles, qui ont vu la disparition définitive de la propriété légitime des êtres humains. La fin de l'esclavage légal ne peut être comprise que dans le contexte de cette histoire immensément longue de changement de l'imagination juridique. Pour donner un sens à ce qui s'est passé, les conférences soutiennent que nous devons considérer non seulement l'histoire du droit, mais aussi l'histoire de la religion.James Q. Whitman est professeur invité par l'assemblée du Collège de France sur proposition du Pr Dario Mantovani.

This is a recording of the Lillian E. Smith Lecture Series Panel "Jim Crow, The Holocaust, and Today." We apologize about any moments where the audio may be unclear. In John A. Williams' Clifford's Blues, the protagonist Clifford Pepperidge is placed in Dachau in 1933 when the Nazis came to power. Originally from New Orleans and the United States, Clifford came to Europe to play music in the jazz scene, and he experienced freedom as a Black man. However, once the Nazis rose to power, he was arrested. Clifford writes in his diary from Dachau, “If you ain't for the Nazis, you're against them, and you wind up here. The South was like that. That's why I left.” Individuals such as Lillian Smith, Kelly Miller, William Patterson, and more saw the links between the Jim Crow South and Nazi Germany. They pointed out, as Morehouse student Henry E. Banks did in April 1933, following the Nazi boycott of Jewish business, the need “to condemn the racial policies of Hitler and oppose injustice wherever it is found” and to recognize the same impulses in the United States. James Q. Whitman, in Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law points out how Nazi lawyers used Jim Crow laws to inform the Nuremberg Laws and more. Through a panel discussion, “Jim Crow, the Holocaust, and Today” will explore the intersections between the Jim Crow South and Nazi Germany, discussing the historical context and also the importance of knowing this history for today. The panel will consist of Dr. Thomas Aiello (Professor of History and Africana Studies at Valdosta State University), Dr. Chad Gibbs (Director of the Zucker/Goldberg Center for Holocaust Studies at the College of Charleston) and Dr. Jelena Subotić (Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University).

This episode introduces the ideas of a law professor at the University of Yale, James Q. Whitman, who stresses the importance of legal history to understand legal history's influence on shaping European and western societies. Whitman provides a critical analysis of the approach of legal historians and specialists in other fields of study to the grand questions of legal history.

Stephanie Peñate joins me yet again again because I am not done discussing US immigration. Even though we talked a while, mostly me ranting, I feel like there's still so much more to discuss regarding the US immigration system, so be prepared to hear more about it in the future. What we did talk about: Steph's experience as a child of immigrants, the challenges migrants face when trying to legally or illegally enter the country, the ways in which the system encourages and discourages certain behaviors, James Q. Whitman's Hitler's American Model and how the Nazi regime admired and was inspired by US race law, the remnants of the US' eugenicist policies today, the medical exam all Green Card applicants have to go through, why migrants would turn to crime, labor shortages, and much more. Ever the selfless person, Steph promoted two different causes instead of their own social media, so here are links to those: All Power Book Club Border Kindness I highly suggest listening to episode 275 before listening to this one. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/santiagoramones/support

Dyalekt and I talk about Hitler's American Model by James Q Whitman.  We have a pretty intense conversation about racism in America and our own experience as people of color.  Dyalekt gives me grace for misunderstanding the term "passing" and we discuss one of Jim Henson's lesser know projects.  

How American race law provided a blueprint for Nazi Germany Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States. Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis? The unsettling answer is yes. In Hitler's American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on the notorious Nuremberg Laws, the centerpiece anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi regime. Both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws―the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law. Contrary to those who have insisted otherwise, Whitman demonstrates that the Nazis took a real, sustained, significant, and revealing interest in American race policies. He looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened but too harsh. Indelibly linking American race laws to the shaping of Nazi policies in Germany, Hitler's American Model upends the understanding of America's influence on racist practices in the wider world.

Author Andrew Maraniss joins the show to discuss his book Games of Deception, which focuses on the first Olympics where basketball was included as a sport (for men only). These were the 1936 olympic games played in the heart of Nazi Germany during the regime's ascension. The games were used as a way for the Nazi's to show off and receive some validation from other world powers and individuals. And in the center of all of this, we have the inventor of the modern game of basketball, James Naismith, traveling to Germany to watch the game played as an Olympic sport for the first time. This is a truly fascinating and relevant story. You can find Andrew's website here and follow him on Twitter and Instagram. Books mentioned in this podcast: The Boys in the Boat by Daniel James Brown, Hitler's American Model by James Q. Whitman, Caste by Isabel Wilkerson, Strong Inside by Andrew Maraniss

Dave and Chris are joined by Yale professor James Q. Whitman, author of ‘Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law,’ to discuss how Nazi Germany drew from American race laws in crafting the Nuremberg Laws.

Yowshien Kuo was educated in both the U.S. and Taiwan and completed his MFA in 2014 from Fontbonne University. Kuo is an active exhibiting artist living and working in St. Louis, Missouri. He is a co-owner of the artist run space, Monaco and has recently exhibited with Superdutchess in NYC, LVL3 Chicago, Terrain Exhibitions, Granite City’s Art and Design District, Projects Plus in St. Louis, and Counterpublic with The Luminary in St. Louis. Yowshien has been an artist in residence with Paul ArtSpace in St. Louis, a recipient of Regional Arts Commission support grant and Critical Mass for the Visual Arts award. His work has appeared in publications that include New American Paintings and The Seen Journal Chicago. He currently holds teaching appointments at St. Louis Community College at Meramec, Washington University’s – University College, and Maryville University in St. Louis. The books mentioned in the interview are Hitler's American Model by James Q. Whitman and Cannery Row by John Steinbeck. Yowshien Kuo But Victor Denies the Similarities Between Himself and the Monster Acrylic, gouache, chalk, Carrara marble, bone ash, and glass on canvas 2019 28” X 30” Yowshien Kuo Slipped in Hope Acrylic, gouache, chalk, Carrara marble, bone ash, and glass on canvas 2020 29” X 30”

Stephen Miller is one of President Trump’s senior policy advisors. This week, Michael Hayden from the Southern Poverty Law Center joins us to speak about the disturbing leaks and the history of America’s immigration policies. Miller backs immigration policies Hitler once praisedMiller refers to President Calvin Coolidge multiple times in emails to Breitbart. Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924. The legislation was based on eugenics and severely limited immigration from certain parts of the world into the United States. White nationalists lionize Coolidge, in part for his remarks condemning race mixing.“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons,” Coolidge wrote in a 1921 magazine article, as quoted on American Renaissance. “Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. … Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”In “Mein Kampf,” Hitler portrayed the U.S. law as a potential model for the Nazis in Germany. James Q. Whitman, the Ford Foundation professor of comparative and foreign law at Yale Law School, noted this detail in his book “Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law.”“Absolutely, Hitler talks about the law in ‘Mein Kampf,’” Whitman told Hatewatch. “He suggests that the U.S. was the only country making the type of progress the Nazis were trying to establish.”Miller brings up Coolidge on Aug. 4, 2015, in the context of halting all immigration to America. Garrett Murch, who also was an aide to Sessions, starts the conversation by emailing McHugh, Miller and three other Breitbart employees, including Hahn, to note something he heard on a right-wing talk radio show:Murch, Aug. 4, 2015, 6:22 p.m. ET: “[Show host] Mark Levin just said there should be no immigration for several years. Not just cut the number down from the current 1 million green cards per year. For assimilation purposes.”Miller, Aug. 4, 2015, 6:23 p.m. ET: “Like Coolidge did. Kellyanne Conway poll says that is exactly what most Americans want after 40 years of non-stop record arrivals.”Another example of Miller mentioning Coolidge happens Sept. 13, 2015, when he criticizes Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham for appearing too sympathetic to refugees. Miller sends an email to McHugh and Hahn with the subject, “Tucker asks McCain, Graham how refugees are good for Americans,” with a transcript of a discussion between the two senators and Tucker Carlson of Fox News.Miller, Sept. 13, 2015, 7:53 p.m. ET: “this is a good chance to expose that ridiculous statue of liberty myth. Poem has nothing to do with it: [Link] Indeed, two decades after poem was added, Coolidge shut down immigration. No one said he was violating the Statue of Liberty's purpose. BTW: have you noticed how [Ben] Carson and [Carly] Fiorina are preening [Marco] Rubio-like daily in front of the media to show them how they are good and decent Republicans unlike Mr. Trump? Finally, speaking of refugees, did you see the expanded list I emailed of foreign-born terrorists on Friday afternoon?”McHugh said the email exchange led to her Breitbart post called “Lindsey Graham: Pretty Poem Says USA Must Adopt Unknown Muslim Men from Jihad-Syria." McHugh’s Sept. 14, 2015, story treats Arab men as a danger to Americans in the suburbs: “Graham’s position is almost a threat: Boots on the ground in Syria, or your sleepy suburb gets a ‘diverse’ surprise.”Miller cites Coolidge again in the context of Ellis Island on April 28, 2015, when he sends McHugh a New York Times article that the immigration museum there would be adding new galleries:Miller, April 28, 2015, 11:38 p.m. ET: Something tells me there is not a Calvin Coolidge exhibit.Miller also brings up Coolidge in the context of Immigrant Heritage Month on June 2, 2015. He sends a link from an MSNBC report about the start of the month:Miller, June 2, 2015, 7:05 p.m. ET: This would seem a good opportunity to remind people about the heritage established by Calvin Coolidge, which covers four decades of the 20th century.Miller’s comment about “four decades” refers to the time between the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, or Hart-Celler Act, which abolished racial quota laws for immigration. Miller’s vision on immigration equates “heritage” with a time in which American laws were dictated by discredited race science.Miller posits conspiracy theories about immigrationMiller helped shape one of McHugh’s stories for Breitbart titled “Ted Kennedy’s Real Legacy: 50 Years of Ruinous Immigration Law,” the emails show. The story focused on the legacy of the Hart-Celler Act from the perspective that the removal of racial quota laws harmed the country. Miller flagged the story idea to McHugh:Miller, March 30, 2015, 1:49 p.m. ET: “They opened the Ted Kennedy center today in Boston. Another opportunity to revisit the ’65 immigration law.”After McHugh’s story was published, Miller emailed her, “The eds should make your piece the overnight lead.” He went on to suggest that the reason no other publication covered the anniversary of the law the same way Breitbart did was because elites wanted to keep the country in the dark about immigration. White nationalists typically argue that whites are being replaced in the United States because outside forces seek to do them harm.Miller, March 30, 2015, 10:24 p.m. ET: “Just let this sink in: Kennedy was honored today, fifty years after pushing through this law, and you're the only writer in the country who published a piece even mentioning the law and what it did.”McHugh, March 30, 2015, 10:31 p.m. ET: “That is … very disturbing.”Miller, March 30, 2015, 10:35 p.m. ET: “Elites can't allow the people to see that their condition is not the product of events beyond their control, but the product of policy they foisted onto them.”McHugh, March 30, 2015, 10:42 p.m. ET: “Right. Immigration is something that we can only vote to have more of — immigration ‘reform’ is a moral imperative — but it’s impossible, evil, racist to reverse immigration, and you don’t think that the government can deport 11 million anyway, do you?”Miller, March 30, 2015, 10:44 p.m. ET: “They want people to feel helpless, retreat into their enclaves, and detach. Our job is to show people they can still control their destiny. Knowledge is the first step. Btw - Bannon was praising your work on this to me again.”In his emails, Miller uses slang and rhetoric about immigration that would be familiar to people who read white nationalists discussing the “great replacement” conspiracy theory. He refers to demographic changes brought about by immigration as “new America” multiple times in the emails. It’s a phrase VDARE sometimes uses. Here are some examples of Miller using similar language in emails to Breitbart over nearly a week in July 2015:“The ruined city of L.A.,” referring to his hometown on July 9, 2015.“New Charlotte,” pointing to an article about employers in Charlotte, North Carolina, hiring more bilingual staff on July 14, 2015.“New English,” about then-current GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush speaking Spanish on the campaign trail on July 14, 2015.“More lies about new america[sic],” linking to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece from July 2015 that lays out the degree to which immigrants are less likely than native-born Americans to commit crimes.Excerpt written by Michael Hayden. Please go to Hatewatch to learn more about Stephen Miller and his disturbing ideology. Get full access to Historic.ly at historicly.substack.com/subscribe

Kansas City based therapist, blogger and podcast host Nathan Staley returns for another conversation. We discuss (and critique) the worldview of Jordan Peterson, the nature of fascism, and the possible psychological effects of the Trump administration erecting the border wall. Show Notes Nathan's work: Off Baseline podcast (http://offbaseline.com/) Loaves and Roses blog (medium.com/loaves-and-roses) References Bari Weiss "Intellectual Dark Web" article (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html) Alexander Offord's critique of Jordan Peterson (https://medium.com/@offordwrites/the-intellectual-fraudulence-of-jordan-peterson-apropos-daniel-karasik-ff3b58c48fc3) The Majority Report with Sam Sedar (https://majorityreportradio.com/) The psychologist Carl Jung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung) Preston Sprinkle (https://www.prestonsprinkle.com/) Theology in the Raw podcast episode (https://www.prestonsprinkle.com/theology-in-the-raw/2019/1/7/718-a-conversation-with-luke-thompson) Fight by Preston Sprinkle (https://www.amazon.com/Fight-Christian-Non-Violence-Preston-Sprinkle/dp/1434704920) Zero Books (http://www.zero-books.net/) Ben Burgis critique of Jordan Peterson's social hierarchy theory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_sEPK9krzQ) Chris Hedges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges) (https://www.truthdig.com/author/chris_hedges/) Barbara Ehrenreich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Ehrenreich) Bright-sided by Barbara Ehrenreich (https://www.amazon.com/Bright-sided-Positive-Thinking-Undermining-America/dp/0312658850) The Specters of Marx by Jacques Derrida (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/80473.Specters_of_Marx) Neoliberalism (https://corpwatch.org/article/what-neoliberalism) How Fascism Works by Jason Stanley (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/586030/how-fascism-works-by-jason-stanley/9780525511830/) Jason Stanley Majority Report interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9idaBsysqAs) Hitler's American Model by James Q. Whitman (https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-American-Model-United-States/dp/0691172420) Steve King's white supremacy comments article (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-king-white-supremacist-offensive_us_5c3752afe4b045f676897d45) Elizabeth Bruenig (https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/elizabeth-bruenig/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.31eb1dfdc61a) (https://medium.com/@ebruenig/reading-list-c0393a56eca2) The End of Work by John Hughes (https://www.amazon.com/End-Work-Theological-Critiques-Capitalism/dp/140515893X/ref=pd_sbs_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=140515893X&pd_rd_r=a5ce9f67-fe5f-11e8-bb85-05637d074539&pd_rd_w=X5RUc&pd_rd_wg=A88e3&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=93K6KV71JQ69Y86PCZ69&psc=1&refRID=93K6KV71JQ69Y86PCZ69)

This week at In The Past Lane, the history podcast, I speak with legal historian James Q. Whitman about his book, Hitler's American Model: The US and the Making of Nazi Race Law. Many people are aware that the American civil rights movement served as an inspiration to freedom movements around the world. But Whitman’s book examines the flip side of that phenomenon – that the very system of Jim Crow racial oppression that the civil rights movement sought to dismantle also inspired efforts around the world to create white supremacist societies, including Nazi Germany. As Whitman demonstrates, Nazi lawyers and public officials studied America’s Jim Crow laws such as those prohibiting interracial sex or marriage and borrowed from them to create the 1935 Nuremberg Laws that stripped German Jews of most of their civil and legal rights. It’s a dark but important chapter in American history, but one that’s very relevant given the recent upsurge in white nationalist and neo-Nazi activity in the US and Europe.   In the course of our discussion, James Q. Whitman explains: How and why Nazi lawyers and public officials studied America’s Jim Crow (eg., prohibitions on interracial marriage) to create the Nuremberg Laws that stripped German Jews of most of their civil rights. How Nazis pointed to the existence of the Jim Crow system of racial oppression in the US as a justification for creating their own version in the 1930s.   How Nazi leaders were inspired by America’s conquest of the West and subjugation of Native Americans as a model for German conquest of Europe. How Nazi officials argued that some aspects of Jim Crow policy actually went too far. How and why Hitler praised the US for its Jim Crow and immigration restriction laws. How many Nazis claimed that the American Revolution was the first step in a global movement to establish white supremacy. Why German historians have been reluctant to write about the American influences in the development of Nazi race laws. Recommended reading:  James Q. Whitman, Hitler's American Model: The US and the Making of Nazi Race Law  Carroll P. Kakel, The American West and the Nazi East: A Comparative and Interpretive Perspective Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America Stefan Kuhl, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow  More info about James Q. Whitman - website  Follow In The Past Lane on Twitter and Instagram  @InThePastLane Related ITPL podcast episodes: 074 Linda Gordon on the second coming of the KKK 040 Richard White on the rise of the Jim Crow order Music for This Episode Jay Graham, ITPL Intro (JayGMusic.com) Kevin McCleod, “Impact Moderato” (Free Music Archive) Andy Cohen, “Trophy Endorphins” (Free Music Archive) Blue Dot Sessions, “Sage the Hunter” (Free Music Archive) Jon Luc Hefferman, “Winter Trek” (Free Music Archive) The Bell, “I Am History” (Free Music Archive) Production Credits Executive Producer: Lulu Spencer Technical Advisors: Holly Hunt and Jesse Anderson Podcasting Consultant: Dave Jackson of the School of Podcasting Photographer: John Buckingham Graphic Designer: Maggie Cellucci Website by: ERI Design Legal services: Tippecanoe and Tyler Too Social Media management: The Pony Express Risk Assessment: Little Big Horn Associates Growth strategies: 54 40 or Fight © In The Past Lane, 2018 Recommended History Podcasts  Ben Franklin’s World with Liz Covart @LizCovart The Age of Jackson Podcast @AgeofJacksonPod Backstory podcast – the history behind today’s headlines @BackstoryRadio Past Present podcast with Nicole Hemmer, Neil J. Young, and Natalia Petrzela @PastPresentPod 99 Percent Invisible with Roman Mars @99piorg Slow Burn podcast about Watergate with @leoncrawl The Memory Palace – with Nate DiMeo, story teller extraordinaire @thememorypalace The Conspirators – creepy true crime stories from the American past @Conspiratorcast The History Chicks podcast @Thehistorychix My History Can Beat Up Your Politics @myhist Professor Buzzkill podcast – Prof B takes on myths about the past @buzzkillprof Footnoting History podcast @HistoryFootnote The History Author Show podcast @HistoryDean More Perfect podcast - the history of key US Supreme Court cases @Radiolab Revisionist History with Malcolm Gladwell @Gladwell Radio Diaries with Joe Richman @RadioDiaries DIG history podcast @dig_history The Story Behind – the hidden histories of everyday things @StoryBehindPod Studio 360 with Kurt Andersen – specifically its American Icons series @Studio360show Uncivil podcast – fascinating takes on the legacy of the Civil War in contemporary US @uncivilshow Stuff You Missed in History Class @MissedinHistory The Whiskey Rebellion – two historians discuss topics from today’s news @WhiskeyRebelPod American History Tellers ‏@ahtellers The Way of Improvement Leads Home with historian John Fea @JohnFea1 The Bowery Boys podcast – all things NYC history @BoweryBoys Ridiculous History @RidiculousHSW The Rogue Historian podcast with historian @MKeithHarris The Road To Now podcast @Road_To_Now Retropod with @mikerosenwald

Hour 1  Dec 7, 2017... another day that will go down in infamy... The left is owning the moral high ground; that's what happens when you abandon principles...it's not 1965 anymore? ...Is the media trying to be more 'credible' and more fact-driven? ...getting back to principles ...'Al Franken Democrats' are changing the party...6th accuser comes forward ...Update: Bitcoin just hit 15K...new futures market coming for Bitcoin...Glenn will explain...Flashback to 2016: 'Family Guy' episode predicted Bitcoin ...Throwing the Clintons 'under the bus' will soon be a sporting event for the Democrat Party??...Character will matter again...their 'Tea Party' is rising to crush the old establishment ...Glenn's Future Markets of Dirt Bags?...Grandpa Joe leads the pack?    Hour 2 Glenn was wrong about this one?...President Trump hits it out of the park...high praise for US Embassy move ...Book: ‘Hitler's American Model’ with author James Q. Whitman...the making of the Nazi Race Law and the United States...new exposure to the Nuremberg Laws?...The days of George Bernard Shaw...We must learn our history ...Guess who's having a really good day today? ...Heads are spinning over Bitcoin... remember 'pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered' ...Bitcoin is larger than Home Depot??...Don't dump 'a lot' of money in it ...   Hour 3 More tech for the kids...Facebook releases a Messenger app for kids as young as 6...what the heck do 6-year-olds need to message each other about??...hooking them for the long term...algorithms and your children..,Warning: YouTube Kids app is under fire...beware of disturbing content disguised as your kid’s favorite show…Television has become sort of a 'safe space'...kids are not watching TV anymore ...It's the 1960's all over again? ...Al Franken officially resigns ...Piña coladas and safe sex??   The Glenn Beck Program with Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere, Weekdays 9am–12pm ET on TheBlaze Radio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Q. Whitman is the guest on this week's episode of The Chauncey DeVega Show. He is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and author of the new book Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law. During this episode of The Chauncey DeVega Show, Professor Whitman and Chauncey discuss the connections between American "race scientists" and their peers in Germany, what the Nazis and Adolf Hitler learned from America's racial order, as well as how American anti-miscegenation laws and Jim and Jane Crow were admired by the Nazis. Professor Whitman also shares his thoughts on the troubling parallels between Donald Trump's rise to power, the recent events in Charlottesville, and Hitler's genocidal authoritarian regime.   On this week's show, Chauncey DeVega reflects on Hurricane Harvey and what its devastating aftermath reveals about the color line, income inequality, and disaster capitalism. Chauncey also ponders the morality of trying to profit from the inevitable rebuilding efforts. At the end of the this week's podcast Chauncey also "connects the dots" between the high level of support for Donald Trump among America's police, disinformation about the Black Lives Matter movement, and how the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies have now labeled anti-fascists as "terrorists".

Why did the Nazis admire America? Yale University law professor James Q. Whitman started out asking why Hitler in Mein Kampf, and other Nazis in the 1930s, referred to American legal precedents on numerous occasions. What he discovered in the archives surprised him, and may shock readers of his book - or any American. Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, raises existentially uncomfortable questions about the sources of racial laws in Nazi Germany and the US. This season of the Tel Aviv Review is made possible by The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, which promotes humanistic, democratic, and liberal values in the social discourse in Israel.

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact...

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. In its classic form, a “decisive” pitched battle was a beautifully contained event, lasting a single day, killing only combatants, and resolving legal questions of immense significance. Yet since the mid-nineteenth century, pitched battles no longer decide wars, which now routinely degenerate into general devastation. Why did pitched battle ever work as a conflict resolution device? Why has it ceased working since 1860? James Q. Whitman is Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School. This Maurice and Muriel Fulton Lecture in Legal History was recorded May 7, 2009.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. In its classic form, a “decisive” pitched battle was a beautifully contained event, lasting a single day, killing only combatants, and resolving legal questions of immense significance. Yet since the mid-nineteenth century, pitched battles no longer decide wars, which now routinely degenerate into general devastation. Why did pitched battle ever work as a conflict resolution device? Why has it ceased working since 1860? James Q. Whitman is Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School. This Maurice and Muriel Fulton Lecture in Legal History was recorded May 7, 2009.